mjp
Founding member
Print-on-demand is great technology and the Internet and e-books are great technology, but together they are effectively making the publisher unnecessary. 20 years ago if I wanted to read some poetry I needed publishers to make it available to me. I could be relatively certain that the publisher believed in the work because there was an expense in time, labor and money involved in getting the work into my hands. Those expenses have all but been eliminated, so when there is no physical product, no book or magazine, exactly what is a publisher? The question a lot of writers are (understandably) asking publishers is, "What do I need you for?"
A traditional "major" publishing house can sell some books for you based on their name. To the reading public that name says that "professionals" have endorsed this as a worthwhile book. But now, even when those major houses publish a book by a writer without an established fan base, the first thing they ask is, "What are you going to do to promote it?" The days when a publisher would pay actual money to advertise and promote a book are over for all but the authors who are the biggest moneymakers.
Seeing as the responsibility for writing and promoting the book fall on the author these days more often than not, and the distribution is overwhelmingly electronic, it makes sense that a writer would question the role of a publisher. Because outside of having a name like "Random House" or "HarperCollins" on your book, there is absolutely no benefit to the author. The publisher is just another hand in the pocket, taking most of the few pennies the book is going to earn.
This isn't a criticism of Silver Birch Press or anyone else in particular. It's just what's happening whether we like it or not. Poets never get paid, but at least in the past you could amass a stack of books and magazines and point to them and say, "There, look at that, I am a published author." What does a writer have now? Their email inbox? There's little incentive to contribute to such publications.
A traditional "major" publishing house can sell some books for you based on their name. To the reading public that name says that "professionals" have endorsed this as a worthwhile book. But now, even when those major houses publish a book by a writer without an established fan base, the first thing they ask is, "What are you going to do to promote it?" The days when a publisher would pay actual money to advertise and promote a book are over for all but the authors who are the biggest moneymakers.
Seeing as the responsibility for writing and promoting the book fall on the author these days more often than not, and the distribution is overwhelmingly electronic, it makes sense that a writer would question the role of a publisher. Because outside of having a name like "Random House" or "HarperCollins" on your book, there is absolutely no benefit to the author. The publisher is just another hand in the pocket, taking most of the few pennies the book is going to earn.
This isn't a criticism of Silver Birch Press or anyone else in particular. It's just what's happening whether we like it or not. Poets never get paid, but at least in the past you could amass a stack of books and magazines and point to them and say, "There, look at that, I am a published author." What does a writer have now? Their email inbox? There's little incentive to contribute to such publications.